Joseph F. Saporito Jr.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania district Appointed by Joe Biden (Democratic) 19 signed orders read

How Judge Saporito decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Sitting by the parties' consent on summary judgment as magistrate judge, he repeatedly found a genuine dispute of material fact even where the moving side had marshaled substantial evidence, declining to weigh conflicting evidence at that stage.

“Therefore, we will deny the Woodloch defendants' motion for summary judgment.”

In a prisoner medical-care suit, he dismissed most claims for failure to state a claim but preserved the plaintiff's chance to fix pleading defects rather than closing the case outright, while independently striking non-compliant expert certificates.

“Guggenheimer's complaint will be dismissed, but he will be permitted to file an amended complaint within 30 days”

Procedural preferences

He routinely pairs a dismissal for failure to state a claim with leave to amend rather than a final dismissal, giving pro se plaintiffs a chance to cure pleading defects.

“we will grant the motion to dismiss, and dismiss all of the plaintiff's claims against the named defendants for failure to state a claim... the complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend.”

When adopting another judicial officer's report and recommendation as district judge, he addresses the objections raised and supplements the underlying analysis with his own opinion rather than summarily adopting it.

“the court will adopt the report and recommendation in its entirety as the decision of the court, as supplemented by this memorandum opinion.”

Cautions

Where a plaintiff's claims were already dismissed with prejudice in an earlier related case as a sanction, he has treated that prior dismissal as foreclosing any further amendment, finding amendment futile and closing the case.

“the Court finds that amendment would be futile... the Court will dismiss the case and direct the Clerk to mark this action as closed.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Smith v. Council 13, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
1:18-cv-00024 · 2018-02-02

As magistrate judge, screening a pro se Title VII complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before service on the defendants, the judge recommended dismissal but with leave to amend rather than a final dismissal: "we recommend that the action be dismissed with leave to amend." This is a pre-service screening recommendation, not a ruling on a party motion, so it is excluded from the motion-outcome statistics below.

Calestini v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
3:19-cv-01995 · 2021-04-13
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Doc. 27), is DENIED.”

McNamara v. Susquehanna County
3:17-cv-02182 · 2019-09-17
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“the motion is DENIED.”

Murphy v. Woodloch Pines, Inc.
3:20-cv-00320 · 2022-11-21
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Therefore, we will deny the Woodloch defendants' motion for summary judgment.”

Sandusky v. Hainsworth
3:22-cv-00500 · 2022-04-07
Habeas petition (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“it is recommended that the petition (Doc. 1) be summarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.”

Dicent v. Kaplan University
3:17-cv-01488 · 2018-06-15
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Kaplan University's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration (Doc. 8) be GRANTED.”

Hyde v. Reed
4:22-cv-00270 · 2022-12-16
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“we will grant the motion to dismiss, and dismiss all of the plaintiff's claims against the named defendants for failure to state a claim... the complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend.”

Shover v. Clark
3:19-cv-01831 · 2023-04-12
Habeas petition (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“the petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED as MOOT.”

Mohr v. Saul
3:18-cv-01057 · 2020-06-09
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“the Report of Judge Saporito is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY... the Commissioner's decision is VACATED... REMANDED... for a new hearing before a different constitutionally-appointed ALJ.”

Springer v. Colvin
3:15-cv-00935 · 2016-10-31
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“Judge Saporito's report is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY and the decision of the Commissioner is VACATED and REMANDED.”

Webster v. Berryhill
3:16-cv-02403 · 2018-01-22
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS RECOMMENDED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security be AFFIRMED and that Webster's requests for the award of benefits or remand for a new administrative hearing be DENIED.”

Fotiou v. Kalahari Resorts
3:18-cv-02389 · 2020-06-25
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The report (Doc. 50) of Magistrate Judge Saporito is ADOPTED. ... Defendant's motion (Doc. 40) for summary judgment is GRANTED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median motion-to-ruling time: 200.5 days (N = 6).

The 12-case sample spans Social Security appeals, prisoner civil-rights and habeas matters, employment disputes, a removed debt-collection case, and a commercial contract action. It contains 14 motion rulings split roughly evenly between Saporito's magistrate service and his district-judge tenure.

Put Judge Saporito's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Saporito actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Saporito's own signed orders and cites them.